The Ari & Bina Sit Edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli. Masechet Bava Batra (Bava Batra tractate). This masechet, the longest masechet in Shas (the six orders of Mishnah) pagewise, has been dedicated by our good friend and pioneer student in the Daf Yomi shiur (daily page study class), Adam Ezra, Hashem yishmerehu veyechayehu (May Hashem guard and sustain him), for the hatzlachah (success) of his dear children, that they should grow up to give him much nachat (joy). May they have chochmah (wisdom), binah (understanding), and vada'at (knowledge), and, be'ezrat Hashem, may they zocheh (merit), at the right time, the proper zivugim (matches) and parnasah (livelihood), osher vechavod me'atah ve'ad olam (wealth and honor from now forever), for him, his wife, and his entire family. Amen.
Daf kuf mem zayin (folio 147). Today's daf is being studied le'ilui nishmat (for the elevation of the soul) Avraham ben Esther. Hashem tenichehu beGan Eden (in the Garden of Eden), amen. Today's daf is also being studied lirefuah shelemah (for a complete recovery) for Moshe ben Luna and Meir Mickey ben Jamie Jamila: El na refa na lahem (Please, God, heal them, please), El na refa na lahem, El na refa, refuat hanefesh urefuat haguf (healing of soul and body), betoch she'ar cholei amo Yisrael (among the other sick of Israel), vechein yehi ratzon venomar amen (May it be so; let us say amen).
We are starting today's daf on kuf mem zayin, perek Mi Shemet (Whoever's deceased). It's three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine lines down. We're talking about a shechiv mera, a person on his deathbed. The din (law) is that whatever he says on his deathbed is considered a kinyan (acquisition). Even though he only said, “Give money to this person” or “Give a gift to that person,” and they did not formalize it with a kinyan, the words of a shechiv mera are halachically binding, and you have to fulfill them.
So the Gemara wants a source for this. How do you know? Amar Rabbi Zeira amar Rav: minayin le-matanat shechiv mera (gift by a person on his deathbed) shehu min haTorah? How do you know that a matanat shechiv mera, a gift by a person on his deathbed, is from the Torah? Rashbam says: “Shekoneh bedibbur belo kinyan sudar” (he acquires through speech without a handkerchief acquisition), “kegon metzaveh machmat mitah depaskinan lekaman delo ba'ei kinyan” (for example, one commanding due to death, as we rule later that no acquisition is needed), “afilu bemiktzat vehu demit” (even for part, provided that he dies). Alternatively, it is a shechiv mera who divided all his assets, left nothing for himself, and died. He gave away all his nechasim, his assets, and then he died.
How do you know about this concept of a shechiv mera being min haTorah? Where do we learn that you don't need to make a kinyan? The Gemara quotes a pasuk (verse) about yerushah (inheritance): veha'avartem et nachalato lebito (you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter). The Torah says that if a man has no son, his yerushah goes to his daughter. What is the language of the pasuk? “Veha'avartem,” and you will transfer the nachalah (inheritance) to his daughter.
“Yesh lecha ha'avarah acheret shehi kazo.” The word ha'avarah means to transfer, and it's extra. Rashbam says: “Shene'emar veha'avartem et nachalato, hava matzi lemichtav ish ki yamut uven ein lo, nachalato lebito.” The Torah could have simply said, “His inheritance goes to his daughter.” Why say “veha'avartem”? “Veha'avartem yeteirah hu”—the word “veha'avartem” is extra. So what is that extra word coming to teach? It teaches that there is another type of transfer. Do you need to make a kinyan on yerushah? No. It's automatic. The father dies, and the yerushah goes automatically to the child. Just as the daughter receives the yerushah automatically, “veha'avartem” is an extra word teaching that there is another case in which assets transfer automatically, even without a kinyan. “Ve'eizu? Zu matanat shechiv mera.” What is it? A gift by a person on his deathbed. That's the first source. Amen.
Rav Nachman learns from the extra word “veha'avartem” that just as yerushah happens automatically, so does the transfer by a shechiv mera.
Rav Nachman amar Rabbah bar Avuha meihacha: “Venatatem (giving) et nachalato le'echav.” It says that if there are no daughters and no sons, the nachalah goes to the deceased's brothers. The Gemara says that the word “venatatem” is also extra. The pasuk could have said, “If he has no daughter, his inheritance goes to his brothers.” Why does it say “venatatem”? The extra word teaches: “Yesh lecha netinah (giving) acheret shehi kazo, ve'eizu? Zu matanat shechiv mera.” There's another giving like this, and what is it? A gift by a person on his deathbed.
So we have two sources: one learns from the word “veha'avartem,” and one learns from the extra word “venatatem.” Two words, so much! No, two different derashot (interpretations). Both teach about a shechiv mera. No, two different rabbis! We'll see why one Rabbi didn't learn from the other verse.
Rav Nachman mai ta'ama lo amar mi-veha'avartem? Rav Nachman, that's a nice derashah from “venatatem,” but what was the problem with “veha'avartem”? “Hahu miba'ei leh lechideRabbi.” He needs “veha'avartem” for another derashah of Rabbi. The beraita (external teaching) says: “Rabbi omer: bekulan ne'emrah bahen netinah, vechan ne'emrah ha'avarah.” Rabbi says that in all the other yerushot the word “netinah” is used, but here the word is “ha'avarah.” Ha'avarah literally means to transfer. “Ein lecha shema'avir nachalah mishevet leshevet ela bat.” The only heir who can cause property to transfer from one tribe to another is a daughter.
Why? “Ho'il uvnah uva'alah yoreshim otah.” She inherits from her father, then gets married. Her husband or her children inherit from her, and the property has now passed to a different tribe. Therefore, the Torah says “veha'avartem” to teach that a daughter who inherits can marry outside her tribe and transfer the property to someone else. “Veha'avartem” is not extra; we learn the din of transfer from one tribe to another.
Rashbam says: “Ho'il uvnah o ba'alah shehen mishevet acher yoreshim otah vehachi ita kra vehachi ata kra le'ashme'inan veha'avartem et nachalato mishevet mishivto al yedei bito shetirshenu veshevet tinasei achareicha le'ish mishevet acher vetamut veyirshenah.”
What is Rabbi Zeira's reason for not saying “venatatem”? According to Rabbi Zeira, he learned from the pasuk “veha'avartem.” Why doesn't he learn from “venatatem”? He says, “Orchei dikra hu.” No, that isn't extra. The Torah says that if he has no sons or daughters, “venatatem le'echav.” You're right that the Torah could have said “le'echav,” but that is not an extra word. The Torah speaks that way; it is orcha demilta.
Rav Menashya bar Yirmeyah amar meihacha. Now we have a third proof for how we know that matanat shechiv mera works. We have either the extra word “veha'avartem” or “venatatem,” and now we have a third pasuk: “Bayamim hahem, chalah Chizkiyah lamut.” In those days, King Chizkiyah became sick and was going to die. “Vayavo eilav Yeshayah ben Amotz hanavi”: the prophet Yeshayah came to Chizkiyah. It's a famous story. “Vayomer eilav koh amar Hashem, tzav leveitecha (command your household).” Make your final will. “Ki met atah velo tichyeh.” What did he tell him? He told him to make his final will, betzava'ah be'alma, by a mere verbal instruction. You see, he was just telling him to do it verbally: “Tzav tzava'at leveitecha.” So you see that a shechiv mera can verbally will his assets to whoever he wants. That's another proof—the third proof.
Rami bar Yechezkel amar meihacha. Rami bar Yechezkel says, from here: “Va'Achitofel.” If you remember, Achitofel advised Avshalom against David. When Achitofel saw that Avshalom was not going to win, he went and committed suicide. It says, “Va'Achitofel ra'ah ki lo ne'estah atzato”: Achitofel saw that his advice was not being followed. Avshalom did not listen to him, and Achitofel felt he would not win. “Vayachavosh et hachamor vayakam vayelech el beito el iro vayetzav el beito.” He commanded his family, “vayichanek,” and he choked himself. He died by suicide. But before he did, what did he do? “Vayetzav el beito.” How did he do it? He did not make a kinyan; he simply commanded them, betzava'ah be'alma. He did it verbally. So you see that a shechiv mera can do this. Those are all the proofs.
Tanu rabanan (the rabbis taught)—we have a beraita. “Sheloshah devarim tzivah Achitofel et banav.” Achitofel commanded his children three things before he died. Number one: “Al tihyu bemachloket” (dispute). Don't get involved in a machloket. I guess he learned his lesson. “Ve'al timredu bemalchut beit David.” Clearly, he learned his lesson: do not rebel against Malchut Beit David, the monarchy of the House of David, because he realized that this was happening to him because of what he did.
Then he said, interestingly, “Veyom tov shel Shavu'ot”—on the holiday of Shavu'ot, “barur.” If it is clear—Rashi says, and Rashbam says, “dehainu Shavu'ot”—if you see it “barur,” clear and not a cloudy day, “zir'u chitim.” Plant wheat that year. Why? “Shematzlichim be'otah shanah.” They succeed that year. He's giving them some advice about business: if Shavu'ot is sunny and clear, you know it's going to be a good, lucky year. Plant wheat, and you'll have hatzlachah. “Zir'u chitim.”
There is a machloket about exactly what he told them, and the Gemara will discuss this segulah (auspicious practice) of whether it is sunny on Shavu'ot. Some say he told them what we have in our text: “barur”—if it's clear. Rashi says “barur” means clear. Mar Zutra amar: “Balul itmar.” He told them, no, “balul,” which is the opposite: cloudy. If it's a cloudy day, then plant wheat. That's a big difference.
Amrei Neharde'ei mishmeih de-Rav Ya'akov: there's a third version. “Lo barur barur mamash velo balul balul mamash, ela afilu balul.” It's neither completely clear nor completely cloudy. Even if it's cloudy, “veru'ach tzefonit menashevet bo,” but a northerly wind is blowing the clouds away, “zehu barur.” That's considered clear. Even if there are clouds, if the wind is blowing them away, consider it like a sunny day; don't worry about it, and plant the wheat. Rashbam explains: “Veru'ach tzefonit menashevet bo shemefazeret et ha'avim.” It scatters the clouds. “Kidechtiv mitzafon zahav ye'eteh ru'ach tzefonit me'ir et hayom kezahav.”
Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: “Anan ade-Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi matninan lah.” We have it according to the version of Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi. What did he say? “Motza'ei Yom Tov ha'acharon shel Chag”—the night after the final festival day. That's the last day of Sukkot; after Sukkot is over, it's Shemini Atzeret. “Hakol tzofin le'ashan hama'arachah.” Everybody would look at which direction the smoke from the Beit HaMikdash, the Holy Temple, was drifting. Depending on where it drifted, they knew where the wind was coming from, and from that they knew what kind of year it would be.
“Hakol tzofin le'ashan hama'arachah.” Everybody would look at the smoke of the ma'arachah, the altar arrangement. “Natah kelapei tzafon.” If the smoke blew north, that meant there was a southerly wind, blowing it north. “Aniyim semechim,” the poor people were very happy, “uva'alei batim atzevim,” but the businessmen were sad. Why? “Mipenei shegishmei shanah merubin,” because they knew that a southerly wind meant a rainy year, “ufeiot markivin.” The fruits spoil very quickly in a rainy year. People can't store the fruit in warehouses, so they have to sell the merchandise, and prices go down because they can't afford to lose the products. The poor are happy because they get cheap food, but the businessmen are upset because they can't raise the prices. Rashbam says: “Ufeiroteihen markivin umitoch she'einam yecholim lehishtamer nimkarim bezol.” Since the fruit can't be preserved, it is sold cheaply.
“Natah kelapei darom.” The opposite: if the smoke blew south, there was a northerly wind. “Aniyim atzevim,” the poor were sad, “uva'alei batim semechim,” and the businessmen were happy. Why? “Mipenei shegishmei shanah mu'atin, ufeirot mishtamerin.” There would not be too much rain, so the fruit would be preserved and could be sold at a high price. The householders would make good money, and the poor would be sad because they had to pay high prices. Rashbam says: “Mipenei shegishmei shanah mu'atin uve'otam hageshamim mitbarchim hapeirot vehazera'im shebasadot mishtamerin.” With a little rain, the fruit in the fields is blessed and the crops are preserved. “Mishtamerin venimkarin beyoker,” they are preserved and sold at high prices. “Harei revach la'ashirim ve'etzev la'aniyim.” That means profit for the rich and distress for the poor.
“Natah kelapei mizrach.” If the smoke blew east, that meant there was a westerly wind. “Hakol semechim,” everybody was happy. Why? Rashbam says: “Lemizrach kulam semechim shema'aravit mamteret bemidah ufeirot einam beyoker.” The westerly brings a moderate amount of rain, and the fruit doesn't become too expensive. The poor are happy because they can buy food at a normal price. The rich are happy too: they benefit from the price, and there is rain in the fields. Everybody is happy.
“Kelapei ma'arav.” If the smoke blew west, that meant there was an easterly wind. “Hakol atzevim,” everybody was sad. Why? Rashbam says, “Shemizrachit mona'at matar.” First, when there is an easterly wind after Sukkot, there is no rain. “Umevi'ah batzoret veyoker.” It brings drought, famine, and high prices. “Gadol ufeirot hakarka einam tzomchot, alma mizrach kasheh uma'aravit yafeh.” The produce of the land does not grow; therefore, an easterly wind is bad and a westerly wind is good. Basically, remember this: an easterly wind is bad and a westerly wind is good.
Now the Gemara asks a contradiction: “Urminhu”—a real contradiction. “Mizrachit le'olam yafeh.” Here it says an easterly wind is always good. “Ma'aravit le'olam kasheh.” A westerly wind is always bad. “Ru'ach tzafonit yafeh lechitim besha'ah shehevi'u shlish.” A northerly wind is good for wheat once it has grown a third of the way. “Vekasheh lezeitim besha'ah sheheinitzu.” But it is bad for olives when they begin to blossom. “Veru'ach deromit kasheh lechitim besha'ah shehevi'u shlish.” The opposite is true of a southerly wind: it is bad for wheat once it has grown a third of the way, “veyafeh lezeitim besha'ah sheheinitzu,” but good for olives when they start to blossom.
So we have a contradiction. How can you remember this before we get to the question? “Va'amar Rav Yosef ve'itima Mar Zutra”—and some say Rav Yosef said it, and some say Mar Zutra. How will you remember the difference between the south and north winds regarding wheat and olives? “Ve'itima Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak besimanach: Shulchan batzafon umenorah badarom.” The table was in the north, and it had the bread made from wheat, so remember that the north is good for wheat. What was in the south? The Menorah, with olive oil. So remember, “Menorah badarom”: the southerly wind is good for olives. That's how you remember it: “Shulchan batzafon umenorah badarom.”
The Gemara says: “Hai marbeh dideih vehai marbeh dideih.” That's part of the siman: each one promotes its own produce. The table represents wheat, which grows well with the north wind, and the Menorah represents olives, which grow well with the south wind. But now we have a question. Make up your mind: is the easterly wind good or bad? Is the westerly wind good or bad?
“La kashya. Ha lan veha lehu.” It depends: that's them, and that's us. Who are “us”? The people of Bavel. Rashbam says: “Ha lan”—that's us, because the Talmud Bavli is from Bavel. “Debenei Bavel hashochenim bimtzulah, ve'artzenu meluchlachat, velo tzerichah lematar kol kach.” The people of Bavel lived in the valley, in low-lying areas. Their land was very moist because the water flowed down into the valley, and they didn't need so much rain, since the area was marshland.
“Ledidan matnya baraita batraita, shema'aravit kasheh.” For us, the second beraita applies: a westerly wind is bad. Actually, for Bavel, the westerly wind is good, because it brings too much rain to Bavel; the easterly wind is better for us because it brings less rain. “Uvaraita kamaita dematnya ipcha lehu debenei Eretz Yisrael, she'artzam gevohah, utzrichim lematar harbeh.” The first beraita, which states the opposite, applies to the people of Eretz Yisrael, whose land was higher and who needed a lot of rain. So it depends where you're talking about. One beraita was about Eretz Yisrael, and the other was about Chutz La'aretz.
The Gemara continues: “Tanya Abba Sha'ul omer: Yom Tov shel Atzeret barur siman yafeh lechol hashanah.” Yom Tov shel Atzeret means Shavu'ot. Back to Shavu'ot: if it is a clear day, it's a good sign for the whole year. It will be a prosperous year.
Amar Rav Zevid: “Hai yoma kama derish shata, i chamim, kulah shata chamima.” If it is hot on the first day of Rosh Hashanah, the whole year will be hot. “I karir, kulah shata kerira.” If it is cold, the whole year will be cold. Rashbam points out that this means most of the year, not every day.
“Lemai nafka minah?” What do you have to know this for? What's the practical difference? The Gemara says: “Litfilato shel Kohen Gadol (High Priest).” On Yom Hakippurim, when the Kohen Gadol came out of the Kodesh Kodashim, the Holy of Holies, he would make a tefillah, praying for the upcoming year. He would base his prayer on what Rosh Hashanah had been like. If the first day of Rosh Hashanah was hot, he would pray, “Please, Borei Olam, don't let it be too hot for the people.” If it was cold, he would pray, “Please, don't let it be too cold.” He would base his tefillah on what had happened ten days earlier, on the first day of Rosh Hashanah.
Rashbam says: “Litfilato shel Kohen Gadol shehayah mitpalel beYom Hakippurim shetehe shanah zu geshumah ushechunah, de'atah lefi ha'inyan shehayah beRosh Hashanah hitpalel beYom Hakippurim.” He prayed on Yom Hakippurim that the year should be rainy and hot, according to what had happened on Rosh Hashanah. That's how he based his tefillah on Yom Hakippurim. Tosafot says: “Sheyitpalel she'im chamah lo tehei chamah yoter midai ve'im kerirah lo tehei kerirah yoter midai”—he would pray that if it was hot, it should not be too hot, and if it was cold, it should not be too cold.
The Gemara continues, now back to the shechiv mera. “VeRava amar Rav Nachman: matnat shechiv mera miDerabbanan be'alma.” Until now we learned that a shechiv mera is min haTorah; we brought pesukim. But Rava says in the name of Rav Nachman that the kinyan of a shechiv mera through speech is entirely a kinyan deRabbanan. Why? “Shema titarev da'ato alav.” Perhaps we are concerned that if you don't listen to him and tell him, “We can't carry out what you said,” he will go crazy because he wants his instructions fulfilled, and this is going to cause him to die. So the Rabbis instituted a takanah (ordinance), called takanat shechiv mera, that the kinyan works. This is a machloket; he holds that it is deRabbanan, rabbinic.
Rashbam says: “Matnat shechiv mera shekoneh be'amirah be'alma einah min haTorah, ukra'ei dile'eil eitzah tovah ka mashma lan (it teaches us good advice).” The pesukim above are stam, simply good advice from the Torah: “Sheyitzaveh leveito bish'at mitato”—that he should give instructions to his household at the time of his death. The advice is simply to tell your household what you want before you die, whether through a kinyan or through speech. For example, there are things that do not require a kinyan, such as telling your household who owes you money. Those pesukim weren't talking about giving something through an actual kinyan. Tell your kids exactly: make sure this guy owes me money, make sure you settle this subject, make sure you do this. The shechiv mera is really only miDerabbanan.
So when Chizkiyah was about to die and Yeshayah came to him and said, “Tzav leveitecha,” it didn't mean to actually transfer assets. He meant, “Tell your family the last things you want to tell them,” as a father does before he dies. Tell them where your papers are and where the hidden things are. “Ela miDerabbanan be'alma koneh.” The kinyan works only miDerabbanan, rabbinically, because we are concerned that by the time witnesses arrive to make the kinyan, the sick person may become confused and die before he can acquire anything, and his instructions will be void. The concern, then, is that by the time the witnesses are assembled, he may already die, and his wishes will not be fulfilled. Therefore, carry them out immediately.
Then Rashbam says, “Vekashya li: mah bekach im tevateil?” What does it matter if it becomes void? “Me'achar she'eino koneh be'amirah, tevateil. Tevateil vetevateil.” Let it be void. What's the problem? He doesn't accept that. “Belishna achrina mefarshinan, uvenir'eh be'einai delahachi tiknu Rabbanan sheyiknu devarav, she'im ein devarav niknin, chaishinan shema titarev da'ato becholyo mitoch tza'ar, shero'eh shelo yekaimu banav tzava'ato.” In another version, it is explained—and it seems to me that the Rabbis instituted that his words should be acquired because if his words are not acquired, we are concerned that his distress will cause confusion of mind during his illness, when he sees that his children will not fulfill his instructions. According to the first reason, you might ask: what's the difference if you don't fulfill his words? The first reason is that it's his will and he wants it done, so we want to expedite it. The second explanation is that the distress he feels when he sees his instructions won't be carried out may make him sicker. That's like we explained originally: the real reason is that we don't want his distress to cause him to get sicker and die. We fulfill his instructions and tell him, “Don't worry, it's done!” At least then he feels that it was done. So it is deRabbanan.
The Gemara asks: “Umi amar Rav Nachman hachi?” Is this matnat shechiv mera indeed deRabbanan? “Veha amar Rav Nachman, af al gav de'amar Shmuel.” This is the interesting case of Shmuel, which we've encountered several times. “Hamocher shtar chov lechaveiro.” A man had a shtar chov, the note showing that he was owed money, and he sold it to somebody else. If you remember, we learned earlier in the masechet that there is a machloket about how you sell a shtar: one opinion said you simply give over the shtar; another said you have to write a shtar transferring the shtar. That's for another time. In this case, the man sold the shtar to his friend, who now had the document. What did the original lender do? “Vachazar umechalo.” He went and forgave the borrower.
Reuven owed Shimon money. Shimon sold the loan to Levi. Then Shimon said, “I'm mochel—I forgive you.” He sold it and then forgave the borrower. You understand? “He didn't get anything?” “Yeah, Shimon got the money for the note.” The Gemara says, “Vachazar umechalo, machul.” The forgiveness works! That's a big chiddush (novel insight).
Rashbam explains: “Hamocher shtar chov, shechayav lo loveh lemilveh mamon, umasro hamilveh et hashtar leyad loke'ach, machal lo, vekatav lo keni lach vechol shi'abudeih,” or, according to the opinion there that documents are acquired by delivery, “i nami kema'an desavira leih hatam de'otyot niknot bimsirah.” The borrower owed the lender money, and the lender gave the document to the buyer. The seller then forgave the borrower. “Vechazar hamocher umachal laloveh, machul.” The seller went and forgave the borrower, and the forgiveness is effective. “Delo machar lo rishon lesheni ela kol zechut shetavo leyado.” The first seller sold the second buyer only whatever rights would come into his hands. If he can't collect, the buyer can't collect either. The buyer is no stronger than the lender from whom his rights came: “Velo adif hai loke'ach mimalveh de'ati machmateih.” The seller must, however, return the money the buyer paid for the shtar. Once he forgives the borrower, he has to return the money he received for the document; he can't keep it.
“Veha hilcheta dedayninan dina degarmi (liability for indirect damage).” The law is that we impose liability for indirect damage, “vezeh hifsid ma'otav.” He caused the other person a loss. If I burn somebody's shtar and cause him a loss, I have to compensate him. “Keivan dechayav me'hahu uvda de'akpiyeih Rafram leRav Ashi ve'agbi mineih ki keshura letzalma.” He is liable, as in the case where Rafram compelled Rav Ashi and collected from him like the value of a beam.
You really have to understand how the mechanics work. How could I have the right to forgive the debt after I sold you the document? What was I selling you? The meforshim say that Birkat Shmuel explains it nicely. In every loan there are two shi'budim, two obligations: shi'bud haguf, a personal relationship between the borrower and lender, which is the personal obligation of the borrower to the lender, and shi'bud nechasim (lien on assets), the assets themselves that are subject to the lien for the debt. The pasuk says, “Eved loveh le'ish malveh” (the borrower is servant to the lender). When I lend someone money, he's my servant now; he's subjugated to me. There is also the shi'bud nechasim, “shehu zechut mamonit shel hamalveh benichsei haloveh”—the lender's monetary right in the borrower's assets.
When the lender sells his debt, “rak shi'bud nechasim”: he can sell only the lien on the assets. He can't sell the personal obligation between Reuven and Shimon; Reuven is still connected to Shimon, not to this third party. That obligation is the shi'bud haguf, and he hasn't transferred it. The borrower borrowed the money from Reuven, so he remains indebted to Reuven. The lender is selling the rights he has to the karka (land), but he cannot sell that personal lien. “Eino nitan limchirah”—it cannot be sold. “Ve'eino over lakoneh ela nish'ar etzel hamalveh.” It doesn't pass to the buyer; it remains with the lender.
After the sale, the buyer can collect the borrower's assets by virtue of that debt, but the shi'bud haguf, the personal obligation, is still with the lender. From that connection between the lender and borrower, he still has the right to forgive the debt. Even if he sells the note, they remain connected by an emotional attachment, which is a halachic attachment, because the borrower is still obligated to him. The lender can therefore be mochel.
What's the point for this discussion? Let's read the Gemara again: “Hamocher shtar chov lechaveiro vechazar umechalo, machul.” Here's the chiddush: “Ve'afilu yoresh mochel.” Even an heir can forgive it. Let's say the lender died after selling the shtar; the lender's heir can also forgive the debt.
Shmuel agrees, however, “she'im netano bematnat shechiv mera, she'eino yachol lemochalo.” If the lender gave the shtar to a third party as a matnat shechiv mera, he can no longer forgive the debt. Only when he gives over the shtar ordinarily can he forgive it. But if he gives it over as a shechiv mera, he can't be mochel.
Rashbam says: “Modeh Shmuel she'im netano”—if the lender gave it to another person as a matnat shechiv mera, either all of it, because he divided all his assets, or through a kinyan. A shechiv mera who makes a kinyan is also included. “Kedin kol matnat shechiv mera bemiktzat, i nami belo kinyan dekeivan demasar bo chayav ein lecha kinyan gadol mizeh, mihu eino chozer bo bematnat shechiv mera.” That is the law of a partial gift by a shechiv mera, or even without a kinyan, since the lender delivered the document and became obligated; there is no greater kinyan than that. In any event, he does not retract a matnat shechiv mera.
So what is the din? The Gemara says: “I amart bishlama de'oraita, mishum hachei eino yachol limchol.” If you say the kinyan of a shechiv mera is de'oraita, that's why he can't forgive the debt; the transfer happened completely. But if you say it's rabbinic, “amai eino yachol limchol?” Why can't he forgive it?
The question is understood this way: if a matnat shechiv mera is from the Torah, the recipient is considered a full heir by Torah law. “Im ne'emar shematnat shechiv mera hi min haTorah, nechshav mekabel kemo yoresh gamur min haTorah.” We consider the person who received the shtar—rather than bought it—a yoresh (heir). An heir receives everything, “vezachah gam beshi'bud haguf shel hachov.” The heir is like an extension of the person who gave it to him. Since the giver had both the lien on the land and the personal lien, when a shechiv mera gives it to someone else, he gives him all the liens. The recipient takes his place with the lien on the land and the personal lien. If it's de'oraita, that explains why the shechiv mera can't forgive the debt.
But if it is deRabbanan, the Rabbis can make rabbinic acquisitions through hefker beit din hefker—they can take assets from one person and give them to another—so that is not a problem. Why, then, can't he forgive it? How could a gift from a shechiv mera be stronger than an ordinary sale? In an ordinary sale, the seller has a right to forgive the debt. Now you're telling me that with a matnat shechiv mera he doesn't? If it's from the Torah, we understand. But if it's deRabbanan, why shouldn't it be weaker than an ordinary kinyan? In an ordinary kinyan he can forgive it, so surely he should be able to do so with a shechiv mera.
The Gemara says, no: “Einah shel Torah ve'asa'uh keshel Torah.” It isn't min haTorah; it's a takanat chachamim, but the Rabbis gave a matnat shechiv mera the power of the Torah itself. Why? So the person doesn't become distressed again. You're right that it's deRabbanan, but in its laws we treated it like the Torah. If you tell the person on his deathbed that he gave the item away but the recipient still doesn't have the power to own the shtar—because the giver can still forgive the debt—then the gift wasn't really transferred. That would cause teruf hada'at, confusion of mind, and tza'ar, distress. He wants to give it over completely. Therefore, even though it's rabbinic, sometimes we make a rabbinic law with the force of a Torah kinyan. Rashbam says: “Umeshani: einah shel Torah ela miderabbanan hi, ve'asa'uh keshel Torah, umishum teruf da'ato ked'amran le'el.”
Baruch Hashem le'olam amen ve'amen.